Monthly Archives: December 2024

There is a Price of Relocating to “Friendly Countries”, but There Are also Corresponding Cost Reductions

This originally posted on January 3 (2024), but is being reprinted in case you missed it due to the rising importance of near/home shoring!

A recent article in El Pais on the price of relocating factories to ‘friendly countries’ noted that according to the European Central Bank (ECB), 42% of the large companies in the Old Continent that it has recently surveyed have resolved to produce in allied countries as a means of reducing risks. However, this relocation carries economic consequences, and international institutions — such as the IMF and the ECB — warn of its impact on growth and soaring prices.

The article is right. Some prices will go up as countries move out of countries in, or likely to engage in conflict, both of the physical (war) and the economic (closed borders, significant tariff increases, rolling lockdowns, etc.) variety, and move to more “friendly” countries. (As far as SI is concerned, it shouldn’t just be “friendly” countries, it should be “friendly countries close to home”. At least companies are realizing that China and/or the lowest cost country is not always the answer when that answer comes with risks that, when they materialize, could lead to skyrocketing costs and losses that dwarf five years of “savings”.

Furthermore, even though 60% of those contacted said that changes in the location of production and/or cross-border sourcing of supplies had push up their average prices over the past five years, this hasn’t been true across the board, it doesn’t have to be true, and some of those could still see savings as they optimize their new processes, methodologies, and supply chain network. (Changes don’t reach full efficiency overnight, and sometimes it is two or three years before you can optimize a supply chain network due to existing contracts, infrastructure, etc.)

Why are costs (initially) going up for many companies?

  • wages: many of the “friendly” countries are more economically mature, or advantaged, with a higher standard of living buffered up by higher wages / better social systems
  • utility charges: in “friendly” countries that are using newer, cleaner, sources of energy or limiting energy production from burning (coal, oil, natural gas) have energy costs that are often higher as the initial infrastructure investment has not been amortized, water costs could be higher if more processing inbound or outbound is required, and so on
  • production overhead: chances are that the factories are newer, required a large investment that isn’t anywhere close to being paid off yet by the owner, and you’re paying a portion of the large interest payment to the investors/banks as part of the overhead

However, it’s important to note that:

  • productivity: will go up when you move to a locale where the workforce is more educated and skilled and is better able to employ automation and modern practices, and thus gets more efficient over time, countering the initial wage increase
  • energy costs: will reduce over time as a solar farm or wind farm can produce renewable energy for decades, with the initial investment often being paid back within one third to one quarter of that time; as a result, energy prices should remain flat(ter) over time than in the locales where they are still burning dwindling fossil fuels (which rise every year in cost) and have not yet invested in renewables
  • overhead: will decrease once the investments are paid back (and the interest payments are gone), which means it can stay flat as other production related costs rise (compared to older plants which will eventually reach a point where the revitalization investment becomes significant on a regular basis)

In addition to:

  • logistics costs: will reduce when you choose a friendly country closer to your target markets (since most freight is ocean freight on fossil fuel burning cargo ships)
  • disruption costs: will reduce as less risk translates into less (costly) disruptions over time

So while costs may go up a bit at first, at least relatively speaking, they will go down over time, especially as network and process optimizations are introduced and obtained from experience with the new network, suppliers, and technologies.

Continuous Improvement is Needed Across the Board!

Risk is going up across the board.

Costs are about to go up across the board.

Supply is getting tight across the board.

Thus, organizations need to improve across the board.

But where do they start?

Good Question!

No Good Answers!

Regardless of how good an organization is doing, it needs to do better in:

  • cost
  • risk
  • supply assurance
  • supplier performance
  • MRO
  • sustainability
  • performance
  • etc.

But just like a solution provider can’t provide a solution that does everything (for everyone), an organization can’t tackle all of its problems at once.

So where does it start?

With efficiency.

Do a process analysis, identify where you are most inefficient, and install a modern technological solution to increase efficiency. At the end of the day, you can’t:

  • reduce cost
  • mitigate risk
  • increase supply assurance
  • improve supplier performance
  • enhance MRO
  • improve sustainability
  • enhance performance
  • etc.

without the time to do it. This means that any investment you make in improving efficiency and freeing up more of your people’s time will continue to return value day-over-day, month-over-month, and year-over-year.

As they become more efficient, they’ll become better at identifying what enhancements will make them even more efficient, and pursue those. With just a few enhancements, they’ll gain the time they need to apply their human intelligence to determine where they have the most to gain.

Quick wins are good, but continual wins are better, and that’s what efficiency delivers.

Resilience is About to Take on a Whole New Meaning!

In Procurement and Supply Chain, resilience (which is defined as the capacity to withstand or recover quickly from toughness) typically refers to supply resilience and the ability to adapt when a supply line gets cut off (due to a supplier bankruptcy or plant shutdown; port strike; logistics delay or loss; etc.). That’s because it used to be the biggest threats to a business’ operation was a supply disruption. Now, it’s only one threat among many that can devastate a modern business. Today’s enterprises have to deal with, among other emerging threats:

  • Natural Disasters: which can now occur close to home even if they never did before (and thanks to global warming they will soon be 10X what they were five decades ago!)
  • Rapid Cost Increases: as a result of tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, and trade wars (as per our article last week on why cost reduction ain’t happenin’, for example)
  • Cyber Attacks: which can hold part or all of their business ransom, unless they have a complete back up less than 24 hours old and are willing to take take their entire business offline, restore and build manually, and keep the business offline until the holes that were exploited by the hackers are identified and plugged
  • Business Operating System Failure: today’s enterprises run on SaaS solutions, and in today’s economic environment, some of these vendors could fail with very little notice and all of a sudden you’re unable to efficiently execute parts of your business until you find a replacement system (and if you didn’t ensure your contract contained the right to download all of your data and configuration settings at any time, and test that you could the minute the system was fully installed and populated with your data, and you can’t do so before the system goes offline, you could be in serious jeopardy — complete data access is way more important than code escrow, especially if you have no clue how to maintain and operate the system, so make sure it is in every contract you sign (and if it’s not, don’t sign)!)
  • Lack of Talent: many reasons for this:
    • Layoffs/Early Retirement: When times got tough, you happily let the boomers walk out the door, enticed Gen-X to do early retirement, and laid off the senior Gen Y talent — most of the top talent is now gone and the rest, that should have been retained, never got proper training or experience
    • Gen-AI: you fell for the bullcr@p that it would allow you to reduce your workforce and solve all your problems and not only did you not bring needed talent in, but you let more walk out the door
    • Tough Competition: smart companies are realizing that while the right tech in the right hands applied to the right problem can make employees super human, without the right talent with the right Human Intelligence (HI!), the AI tools are useless and are seeking out the talent that remains who can use tech with more audacity and resolve than ever before; and if your top talent isn’t well paid and happy, you could lose them without warning (FYI: you will if you mandate unnecessary office returns — remember, it’s about productivity, not being at a certain place at a certain time)

In other words, possible business ending events are going to arise and engulf all areas of the business and a business that can’t quickly identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor will not be a business that survives.

Resilience is going to take on a whole new meaning, so make sure your Procurement and Supply Chain departments are up to the task! You might have thought the worst was behind you now that the COVID-19 Pandemic is over, but that was just the trial run!

Don’t Abuse Lean and Mean — The Four Horsemen of the Shipocalypse Don’t Need Any Help!

If you are in Procurement or Logistics, you know that the time of cheap, fast, and reliable — which we had for almost two decades, is now long gone and likely to never return. That is because the four horsemen have turned their attention to global trade … specifically, global logistics … and have brought:

  • war: the conflict in the Red Sea, one of the two most important waterways in the world, has made most transport almost impossible
  • famine: the droughts in Panama, the other of the two most important waterways in the world, have reduced its capacity by at least 1/3 for at least 1/3 of the year
  • pestilence: plague has returned, taking down the necessary workers (and closing the necessary ports) with it
  • death: corporate greed and union response have stepped in here to bring certain death to global supply chains if things don’t change:
    • oil prices: the more they go up, the more unaffordable our dirty ocean freight becomes
    • limited capacity: greedy corporations scrapped ships during the pandemic for insurance claims, sometime ships that hadn’t even made a single voyage … and now that they’ve learned they can raise prices up to 10X pre-pandemic prices for a single container during peak season, and the richer (luxury good) companies will still pay the rates, they have no incentive to bring capacity back
    • union demands: inflation has been rampant, workers have been impacted, and they want their pre-pandemic buying power … and, as I’ve noted before, labour unrest and strikes is now one of the biggest risks in your global supply chain

As a result, the last thing you want to do is help the horsemen bring your supply chain to a a halt, but that’s exactly what you keep doing day in and day out as you keep pursuing, and applying, lean, mean, and JIT (just-in-time) where it doesn’t belong.

As noted by the author of this recent LinkedIn article on how you have (less than) two weeks to stave off supply chain chaos, we’re at the point where a one day stop in any part of the supply chain turns into one week to recover from, a one week stop in any part of the supply chain turns into one month to recover from, and a one month stop in any part of the supply chain totally f*cks us for a year! (Since the effects are not linear but exponential!) And it’s all your fault.

Lean and mean was supposed to be about efficiency in manufacturing and lack of waste, not slashing inventory to dangerous levels, not slashing capacity to dangerous levels, and was certainly NOT meant to be used by idiot MBAs (which stands for Master of Business Annihilation) with no concept of what the corporation does running global corporations off of spreadsheets alone!

So stop applying it to inventory and capacity! Thank you.

666+ S2P+ Solutions … But Key Problems Are Still Not Addressed! Part 2

In Part 1 we noted that, by now, you should have seen the Mega-Map and the 666 solution logos on it.

We also noted that you will have repeatedly heard the doctor and THE REVELATOR say repeatedly that another massive purge is coming to our space over the next 18 to 24 months (which will be the greatest since 2009-2011 where hundreds of companies were acquired, merged, or went insolvent), and that it’s already starting (with a few notable insolvencies, at least as far as the doctor is concerned, already occurring).

And you’ve heard us say multiple times that there isn’t room for this many companies because even if you account for market size and vertical, we still only need so many solutions that more-or-less do the same thing.

That being said, there are still core needs not being met in the modern enterprise, especially given that we are seeing a return to protectionism, sanctions, and border closings; a continual rise in natural disasters; and a continual disruption in logistics. Solutions are needed that go beyond siloed Procurement. And any company that steps back, analyzes the problem and the needs, and takes the time to define, and build, something truly new still has a chance to breakout and succeed in today’s overcrowded SaaS market.

the doctor is not alone in this understanding. Back in 2022, THE PROPHET saw this need to rethink Procurement Technology and that’s why he proposed his alt-suites. And while we believe he didn’t get them all right, some of the fundamental issues he saw and reasoning he gave, when expanded upon and thought through, will lead you in the right direction. Just like two of our last three suggestions were built on the core ideas behind his DFS [Design for Sourcing] (which was almost perfect) and A2M [Assess to Monitor] suites, two of today’s take some ideas from two of his suggestions as well.

4. Third Party Management (TPM)

Now, you’re probably saying “wait up, we already have that” since we have third party risk management and third party compliance management solutions starting to pop up, but those just represent a slice of Third Party Management requirements. Now you’re probably saying “but we have some very extensive supplier management solutions that do development and performance and they can be used” but the answer here again is that they represent another slice as they are not only supplier centric, but typically found in organizations that need to manage direct suppliers for quality and cost control — and typically not used to manage partners for consulting or implementation (which those systems have no capability to support).

Just like an organization needs a Risk 360 for it’s Risk Management function, it needs a TPM system to fully monitor and manage the third parties it works with, regardless of what it uses them for. Having separate systems for product suppliers (SXM), contractors (CWM), services providers [for implementation, integration, and support) (TPRM), etc. not only gives a fragmented view of the organizational partner ecosystem, but doesn’t even give a complete view for any single partner. A services partner may provide you with internal headcount (CWM) and third party service outsourcing (TPRM). A product partner may provide you with goods (SDM) and select services (TPRM). And so on. Plus, there’s also quality control systems and customer support systems that will have relevant data on the partner performance.

In other words, you can’t just Assess-to-Monitor from a Risk perspective, but you also need to manage and develop as well. And while you might think that Risk360 could be a sub-offering, risks go beyond the entities you are dealing with to include risks that are independent of partner and sometimes specific locations.

5. Vertical Enterprise Project Management

Now, before you say the doctor has lost it, because we have more project management systems than we can shake a stick out, the reality is that most of these “project management” systems don’t really manage projects across the enterprise, and most don’t support anything beyond timelines, milestones, and resources — not nearly enough to handle the intricacies of complex projects that involve the entire enterprise like NPD/NPI, building/facility construction, partner-aware supply chain (re-)design, and so on.

When THE PROPHET said we needed Commercial Value Management (which was defined as the next generation of Contract Lifecycle Management), he was onto something … because no one really “manages” contracts; no one really takes full advantage of what modern, advanced, contract modelling/creation/analysis systems can do; and no on ever pulls the contract out of the electronic filing cabinet unless there is a dispute … even though it is the foundation of the relationship and should be used as the baseline for relationship management. Commercial Value Management was defined to fix all that, putting the contract at the center of organizational “value”, but “value” is nebulous, and organizations have already proven time and again that they only thing they want to do with a contract is redline it, sign it, and resign it to the e-filing cabinet.

However, at the core of the CVM concept is an ability to manage projects off of the contract, projects that would span multiple departments throughout the enterprise. That is useful. If we focus in on that and then realize the problem with most “generic” project management solutions is that they don’t meet specific organizational needs because every vertical has its own unique project needs, we can see that what enterprises need is true enterprise-wide project management support tailored to its vertical. Software that understands the intricacies of construction/facility construction and how it requires the coordination of sub-projects with many contracts and subcontractors, as well as temporary assignment, use, and return of equipment. Software that understands NPD in electronics and how the quest to even determine if you are going to design a new mobile personal computing device will require input from the entire company tailored to electronics project design, component and supplier identification, supply chain design, customer support, etc. Software that understands the unique aspects of identifying an organization’s needs before, during, and after the rip-and-replace of an ERP system and all of the project aspects that will be required (process analysis, data analysis, gap analysis, integration requirements, change management, training, etc.). And while there are tools to support the core activities in the core departments, none take an enterprise view and, further more, can link into the TPM system, ERP/Inventory/HR system, CLM system, etc. and take a truly enterprise view of project management customized to a vertical.

And while it’s possible that someone could build a baseline solution that can support multiple verticals, the front end and customizations required will require separate offerings for each vertical that company goes after. Efficiency, which should be the goal of technology acquisition, cones from supporting integrated processes, not piecemeal tasks.

6. Real-Time True Enterprise Analytics

This is a bit of a cheat in that the doctor knows of one system that can do it (Spendata), but the reality is that the vast majority of enterprise analytics systems claiming to be “best in class” cannot. Even the majority of “best in class” spend analytics solutions don’t even permit true, real-time, do-it-yourself spend analytics.

At a minimum, a modern analytics system must be capable of:

  • pulling in any type of data from any source in real time (and mapping it to a structure that supports analysis)
  • allowing the user to define whatever rules are necessary for cleansing, enrichment, validation, and mapping to not only the internal structure but multiple, simultaneously supported, taxonomies for analysis
  • defining as many derived dimensions as necessary, on whatever calculations and metrics are required
  • supporting as many cubes as are required to accommodate the different data sources being pulled in
  • enabling federation across as many cubes as are required for the analysis
  • managing not only supporting multiple views across the federation, but linked views that support simultaneous drill down
  • creating arbitrary, reusable, filters that can filter on an dimension using any value, or calculation, as is required
  • enabling derived cubes, federations, and views as needed to support dependent, what-if, and problem specific analysis
  • performing data updates in real time, and then propagating those updates through all affected cubes, federations, and views as well as all derived cubes, federations, and views in real-time
  • permitting a user to do all this, on demand, in real time

Most current Business Intelligence (BI) solutions are still based on ROLAP, at best, and all analysis is done against fixed cubes that are updated on a schedule (or on demand, but the entire cube needs to be recalculated before any analysis can be done). They also generally support fixed view types on the provided ROLAP cubes, and an analyst is very limited in terms of what they can do.

The same goes for most Spend Analysis systems. The providers support a fixed number of cube types, give you a default set of reports and dashboards, and you are limited to customizing views on those cubes and dashboards. Building whatever you want, whenever you want, from scratch is out of the question, as is real-time data updates. The best solutions will allow you to bring in additional data to augment your analysis, but unless it’s in the main database, it will be lost when the analysis expires, which is whenever the core cube is updated as only one of these solutions currently supports true inheritance.

In other words, a Strategic Spend Terminal is not enough. Not even close. In fact, it’s just one view, tailored to Sourcing, on the federated data sets that such a next generation analytics solution will support. In fact, there should be multiple strategic spend terminals, one per business unit that shows them the data they need the way they need to see it to allocate their time and effort accordingly.

Until analytics is rethought at the core, users will never be able to do the what-if analysis they need on different data types to get the insights they need when they need it, and AI won’t solve the problem. AI allows for better predictive analytics IF you have the right, verified, structured, data and IF you know the right AI algorithm to apply to the question at hand with the data you have. If you don’t have the right platform, AI is ultimately useless.